{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107179", "time_of_filling": "2025-01-09 08:54:00", "domain_names": [ "thyssenkkrupp.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Dr. Claudia Pappas (thyssenkrupp AG- thyssenkrupp Intellectual Property GmbH)" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Leslie Smith " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a German industrial engineering and steel production headquartered in Germany. The Complainant's name “thyssenkrupp” is the result of a merger of two German well-known steel companies, founded in 1891 and AG founded in 1811. It is emphasized that the Complainant is a German conglomerate with more than 98.000 employees and a revenue of more than 35 billion EUR in fiscal 2023\/2024. It was ranked tenth largest worldwide by revenue in 2015.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <thyssenkkrupp.com> was registered on 29 November 2024 by a physical person named Leslie Smit, based in Los Angels, US.<\/p>\n

The Complainant initially filed a multiple domain name dispute which apart from the disputed domain name <thyssenkkrupp.com> referred to above included also the following domain names: <thyssenkrupp-mangement-consulting.com>, <thyssenkrupp-mangement-consulting.pro>, <thyssenkruppautomotivetechnology.com> and <thyssenkruppautomotivetechnology.pro>.<\/p>\n

However, registrar verification revealed that those disputed domain names are registered by another registrar and on the name of a different registrant. Therefore, on 13 January 2025, the Complainant filed an amended complaint referring only to the first disputed domain name <thyssenkkrupp.com>.<\/p>\n

Such disputed domain does not resolve to any active website.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n

Identical or confusingly similar<\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <thyssenkkrupp.com> and the Complainant's prior right over the name THYSSENKRUPP are confusingly similar.<\/p>\n

Particularly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademarks and domains “thyssenkrupp”. The addition of an extra \"k\" in \"thyssenkkrupp\" does not significantly alter the appearance, pronunciation, or overall impression of the mark, creating a strong likelihood of confusion among internet users. <\/em><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant states that the term “thyssenkrupp” has a distinctive character in the disputed domain name given that it is fanciful word with no meaning for any goods and services<\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant concludes that the element “thyssenkrupp” coincides with the Complainant’s company name.<\/p>\n

Indeed, according to the Complainant, the small differences between its registered trademarks and the disputed domain name do alter the overall similar impression the domain name and the registered trademarks leave.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also points out that the applicable Top-Level suffix “-.com” does not per se prevent the likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n

No rights or legitimate interests<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the respondent has no prior right in the contested domain name.<\/p>\n

Registered and used in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

As far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant states the Respondent has used an email address linked to the disputed domain to perpetrate a phishing scheme targeting the Complainant's client. The fraudulent email impersonated the Complainant’s legitimate business operations, leading the client to make an advance payment for an order that was never fulfilled.<\/p>\n

The Complainant considers such actions as bad faith act under Paragraph 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP, as the Respondent has intentionally disrupted the Complainant's business and attempted to confuse consumers for its financial gain.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, such action is also the evidence of the fact that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks, company names and domains, when choosing the domain name.<\/p>\n

Given the Respondent’s deliberate and harmful conduct, the Complainant argues that the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant is warranted to prevent further abuse.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Hana Císlerová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-02-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registered owner of several trademark registrations, namely of the following ones:<\/p>\n